https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16469 Where penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) had been validly referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the pre-amendment scheme, the later omission of section 274(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 did not divest that authority of jurisdiction to complete the pending matter. The governing principle was that a validly initiated and referred penalty proceeding survives the statutory omission and may be brought to conclusion under the earlier regime. The Tribunal's contrary view was therefore incorrect, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner retained jurisdiction to impose the penalty. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:49:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16469 Where penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) had been validly referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the pre-amendment scheme, the later omission of section 274(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 did not divest that authority of jurisdiction to complete the pending matter. The governing principle was that a validly initiated and referred penalty proceeding survives the statutory omission and may be brought to conclusion under the earlier regime. The Tribunal's contrary view was therefore incorrect, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner retained jurisdiction to impose the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16469